LESSON 1 | HOW GREED AND RISING DEMAND FOR LAND FUEL TENURE INSECURITY IN GHANA | 1

Focus on Africa Brief

M A R C H 2 0 1 1

Kenya
1411 Fourth Avenue, Suite 910
Seattle, WA 98101
P 206.528.5880 • F 206.528.5881
www.rdiland.org

L A N D F O R L I V E S T O C K A N D PAT O R A L I S T S
Rangelands and pastoralists in Kenya have received considerable attention from government. A range

Lesson 1: of policies and investments have been designed to sedentarize pastoralists and modernize livestock
production. Beginning in the mid-1960s, the government introduced group ranches which allowed
a group of pastoralists to jointly own and manage land. While promising, group ranches failed to
achieve their objectives of commercializing production, improving pastoral wellbeing and improving
Group Ranches environmental management.
Arid and semi-arid lands (ASALs) cover approximately 80% of Kenya’s total 569,140 km² land area,
and are home to an estimated 14 million people (35% of the total population of 40 million people).
Due to high seasonable variability and fragile soil conditions, most ASALs are suitable for extensive
livestock production in which livestock move from place to place and grazing is carried out over large
areas. While livelihoods of ASAL residents are diverse, pastoralism is the main form of land use. ASALs
support 67% of Kenya’s estimated 12.7 million cattle, 86% of the estimated 17.9 million sheep and
goats, all camels, and most of the large wildlife species.
Before 1900, most natural pastures in Kenya were used for livestock grazing by various groups of
nomadic pastoralists, including the Kipsigis, Endorois, Tugen, Pokot and Maasai (often collectively
referred to as Kalenjin) as well as the Sabaot, Somalis, Borana and other groups. Over centuries, these
pastoralist societies had crafted institutions and practices that enabled them to survive in ASALs.
Pastoralists managed pastures communally and grazed individually-owned livestock extensively,
involving the seasonal movement of people and cattle. These systems were regulated by: 1) the
availability of water and good pastures; 2) the presence of diseases along nomadic routes; 3) the
prevailing security situation; and 4) the timing of important socio-cultural activities.

I M PA C T S O F C O L O N I A L I S M
Colonialism brought changes to pastoralists and their way of life. In the late-1880s and early-1900s,
This series of briefs was produced by the World Resources Institute in partnership with Landesa. This project was funded by the
Bill & Melinda Gates foundation.
 LESSON 2 | G R O U P R A N C H E S | 2

the predominant attitude of the British towards Resettlement Board was created to address land
pastoralists was to sedentarize (i.e., settle) them, in an degradation; the Board was later taken over by the
effort to politically pacify pastoralists and maintain law African Land Development Board (ALDEV). ALDEV
and order. The Crown Lands Ordinances of 1901 and was charged with implementing the Ten Year
1902 declared all land in Kenya be to “Crown Land” Development Plan (1946-55) which had much
belonging to the Queen of England, and authorized wider objectives.
the British High Commissioner to Kenya to evict
The Ten Year Development Plan was intended for
Africans from their traditional lands, confine them in
all African areas, but ALDEV efforts concentrated
“native reserves,” and allocate their former lands to
largely in the ASALs, especially in Machakos,
white settlers for commercial production.
Kiambu, Kajiado and Narok Districts. Pastoralists
The alienation of land for white settlers (and, later, the were organized to occupy large grazing
creation of protected areas for wildlife conservation) schemes and supported by various government
deprived many pastoralists of their traditional lands. projects, including tsetse fly eradication, locust
In particular, the opening of the Uganda Railway control, vaccination against rinderpest virus,
line from Mombasa on the coast to Kisumu on Lake soil conservation, afforestation, boreholes, dam
Victoria in 1901 resulted in an influx of settlers. Many construction and small-scale irrigation. To some
settlers acquired land in the fertile White Highlands extent, marketing was also developed, and stock
and established coffee or tea plantations, but others routes were organized between the ASALs and
acquired freehold titles and long-term leasehold urban centers.
grants of pastureland for ranch development. Much
Grazing management plans were developed for
of this land had been held and used by pastoralists
the initial grazing schemes, but they were not well
as common property under customary tenure
enforced by ALDEV. Pastoralists readily accepted
arrangements. The colonial government, however,
the short-term benefits, but continued to move
restricted land titles to individuals and did not provide
outside the schemes and migrate in search of
for titling of common property.
pasture and water during periods of hardship.
In an attempt to secure land for Africans, including Most pastoral groups also viewed the colonial
pastoralists, the British government established administration with suspicion and believed that
“native reserves” with fixed boundaries (the Maasai the British did not understand the real nature
and others negotiated “treaties” for their reserves in of their cultures or way of life. Moreover, ALDEV
an effort to better secure their lands from alienation efforts were so extensive and expensive that they
by white settlers). The boundaries of reserves for were suspended in the pilot districts and not
pastoralists were drawn with little regard to seasonal expanded or replicated in other areas.
variation, and their need to move their animals to
In 1955, the “Swynnerton Plan for the Reform of
water and greener pastures. The rigid boundaries
African Land Tenure” established a new land-use
also undermined the marketing networks that
policy. The policy sought to formalize land rights
had previously existed between pastoralists and
of African farmers in high potential agricultural
neighboring agriculturalists.
areas and support communal grazing in pastoral
The colonial government focused on developing areas. In pastoral areas, the Plan aimed to reduce
commercial agriculture in the White Highlands, but livestock numbers, avoid overuse of vegetation,
also made investments in the ASALs, especially to limit soil erosion and realize reasonable annual
reduce overgrazing and soil erosion. Initially, the off-takes. It identified five conditions for sound,
British supported the production of African cattle, productive use of rangelands: 1) stock numbers
and settlers used local breeds for their ranches. limited to a prescribed carrying capacity for the
Later, however, the British isolated local breeds and land; 2) regular outlets to absorb excess stock;
discouraged African pastoralism through punitive 3) construction of permanent water supplies; 4)
quarantine regulations that confined cattle to controlled grazing and grazing areas managed at
particular areas. With no official outlet for surplus a productive level; and 5) eradication of the tsetse
stock, the regulations lead to overgrazing and fly, which infected cattle with trypanosomiasis
declining pasture conditions in the native reserves, (sleeping sickness).
especially after the 1933-34 droughts.
To implement the Swynnerton Plan, the British
DEVELOPMENT PLANS launched 40 grazing schemes in the districts
of Kajiado, Narok, Baringo, Samburu, Elgeyo
The onset of World War II and the growing Marakwet, lower Kiambu, Mukogodo, West Pokot,
demands for agricultural goods led to even greater Lamu, Kwale, South Nyanza, Taita, Kitui and
concentration of public resources and services in Machakos. The schemes involved stock limitation,
the settler areas. By the end of WWII, the quality of livestock marketing, water development, and
ASALs had significantly deteriorated as a result of the tsetse fly eradication. A livestock officer was
colonial government’s policy of forced sedentarization attached to each scheme. Many grazing schemes
of pastoralists. The British ordered destocking (a failed, however, because restrictions on the
reduction in the number of livestock), but the movements of animals proved difficult given the
measure provoked considerable local and political unreliability of rainfall and variability of grazing.
dissent, and was soon abandoned. In 1945, the African By the early 1960s, most schemes had been
 LESSON 2 | G R O U P R A N C H E S | 3

abandoned. their own livestock but collectively manage the for the benefit of persons ordinarily resident on
ranch, including maintaining ranch boundaries and the land. Shortly after, the Kenyan government
Following the severe drought and floods of
preventing non-members from using their land. passed the Land Adjudication Act, which came
1961-62, concern over the ASALs became more
Members would pay user fees and be collectively into force in 1968 and was designed to enable
urgent. With independence in 1963, the Kenyan
responsible for loan repayment. the ascertainment and recording of rights and
government established the Range Management
Division in the Ministry of Agriculture to upgrade In practice, there were four main steps to interests in Trust land to ensure that not only were
the range economy by conserving, managing and establishing a group ranch. First, the boundaries individuals and families recorded and registered
developing the ASALs. The Division recognized that between Maasai sections or oloshons (large as landowners, but groups as well.
major changes in land tenure would be needed to traditional grazing units that are politically Between 1968 and 1970, 14 new group ranches (in
promote rangeland development. It was believed autonomous and culturally varied) were addition to Poka) were established, all in Kaputiei
that security of tenure would reduce the pastoralists’determined by the pastoralists with government section. The government favored Kaputiei section
tendency to overstock the ranges, increase their assistance, and then formally approved by the because it was organizationally sound and offered
incentive to invest in range improvement and act as Registrar of Group Lands in Nairobi. Second, these good prospects for social development. Maasai
collateral for loans to invest in these improvements. “adjudication sections” were divided into several leaders were strongly in favor of group ranches
group ranches. Third, household heads were asked partly because they feared encroachment on
In 1965, the government commissioned an inquiry
to register for one ranch, although in practice many their territory by the Wakamba in the northwest
into “Land Consolidation and Registration in Kenya,
registered for more than one ranch. and by the Kisongo Maasai in the southwest. As
1965-1966.” Known as the Lawrence Report, it
concluded that group registration of land, rather The fourth step to establishing a group ranch land in Kaputiei was converted to group ranches,
than individual registration (which the government was the formulation of a group ranch committee other sections became concerned about possible
was pursuing across Kenya), had greater relevance to to manage ranch affairs. The group ranch loss of their land and called for group ranch
range areas. It argued that land rights in Maasailand members elected the committee members. establishment.
range areas were communal, and proposed Committee responsibilities included: 1) overseeing The group ranch concept was implemented
appointing group representatives to deal with the infrastructural development and loan repayments; principally through the Kenya Livestock
land and to enable direct adjudication of private, 2) enforcing grazing quotas and grazing Development Policy (KLDP). In KLDP Phase I
permanent land rights to groups. management; and 3) maintaining the integrity (1968-74), the boundaries between “adjudication
of the group ranch boundary. In many cases, the sections” for group ranches throughout
The Lawrence Report formed the official basis for
committee was assisted by a hired ranch manager Maasailand were determined. The division of these
the establishment of “group ranches”—defined
and the government extension service. areas into group ranches and their incorporation
as a livestock production system or enterprise
where a group of people jointly hold freehold title In 1964, the Range Management Division came in two later phases, KLDP Phase II (1975-78)
to land (theoretically on an equal basis), maintain established a prototype group ranch—Poka in and Phase III (1979-1982), although in some areas
agreed stocking levels, and herd their individually- the Kaputiei section of Kajiado District—to test the process was not completed. Additional group
owned livestock collectively. Group ranches the feasibility of the concept. Poka consisted of 36 ranches in other areas were also established in
became a principal organizational structure for the self-selected Maasai members on nearly 9000 ha Phases II and II.
development of traditional pastoral areas, especially of Kaputiei’s best grazing land. The Division gave The Maasai initially embraced group ranches
in the Maasai districts. ranch members considerable technical and financial because they offered: 1) the promise of finance to
support. In 1965, water points and dips were built develop ranch infrastructure and the possibility
G R O U P R A N C H C O N C E P T and, in 1967, the ranch was given a loan under of expanding their herds; 2) the certainty of
For the government, group ranches had several which each member received a Sahiwal bull and maintaining Maasailand (protection from
objectives: 1) increase the productivity of pastoral cash to buy steers for fattening. Poorer people were government acquisition and from individuals
lands through increased off-take; 2) improve also given credit to buy breeding stock. selling off land since tenure was assigned to
the earning capacity of pastoralists; 3) avoid In 1968, the government passed the Land (Group a group); 3) social and cultural stability; and
landlessness among pastoralists, especially from the Representative) Act which legalized the ownership 4) ultimately, greater control over traditional
allocation of land to individual ranchers; 4) avoid and occupation of land by a group of people, and Maasailand with its transfer from government
environmental degradation due to overstocking provided the legal basis for the establishment of hands to the Maasai people. Some researchers,
on communal lands; and 5) establish a production group ranches. The Act provided that “each member however, have argued that local acceptance of the
system that would allow modernization of livestock shall be deemed to share in the ownership of the group ranch concept derived principally from the
husbandry while preserving traditional ways. By group ranch in undivided shares.” The law provided “(f)ear of alternative governmental actions rather
tying people to fixed areas of land, it was also hoped for elected group representatives to act as legal than enthusiasms for the proposal”—it was the
that group ranches would sedentarize pastoralists, trustees of the ranch and to act on the group’s least objectionable means by which to implement
raise awareness of the scarcity and value of land, and behalf regarding property succession matters (to tenurial change.
encourage them to make the investments necessary avoid the need for express transfer of property Group ranches served important functions for the
to improve the land. whenever a new group of representatives was Maasai. They were the principal means through
The government envisaged: 1) parceling Trust land elected and registered). The Act also enabled which County Council-held Trust land in Maasai
into ranches with freehold titles held by groups of participants to acquire development and operation areas was transformed to title deed holdings with
pastoralists; 2) registration of permanent members funds from local financial institutions. the rights and responsibilities of land ownership
of each ranch; 3) exclusion of members from other Other legislation, especially laws regarding Trust vested in ranch members. Since, in general, non-
group ranches; 4) allocation of grazing quotas (i.e., land, also affected group ranches. In 1939, the Maasai could not be members, group ranches
the number of livestock per group ranch); and 5) British passed the Trust Land Act, which governed helped stem encroachment of farmers of other
development of shared ranch infrastructure through land that was occupied by Africans and had not ethnic groups on Maasailand. To some extent,
loans to the group (e.g., water points, boreholes, been registered in individual or group names or group ranches also prevented the allocation
dips and vaccinations, stock handling facilities, declared government land. At independence in of land to elite Maasai. The law also enabled
firebreaks). Group ranch members would care for 1963, Trust land was vested in county councils the Maasai to subdivide the group ranches
which had the power to hold and alienate land to individual members and acquire separate
 LESSON 2 | G R O U P R A N C H E S | 4

individual rights over land. ignored their quotas and maximized their herd size. and southeastern parts of the District. Today few, if
Most herd owners only sold the minimum number any, group ranches remain, although the process of
By the mid-1970s, however, it was clear that of animals to meet their financial commitments.
group ranches were not an effective means of subdivision has not been entirely transparent so it
As a result, commercialization did not take place, is difficult to establish the exact number.
commercializing beef production by pastoral livestock numbers increased beyond the carrying
societies. The causes of this failure were many and capacity of the land, and pastures degraded. Research shows that subdivision of group ranches
complex. There was limited understanding and led to small land allotments, increased cultivation
sometimes strong disagreement among the Maasai R A N C H S U B D I V I S I O N and increased land sales. It also led to more
about demarcating group ranches. Some Maasai cultivation on fragile marginal lands with higher
wanted the whole oloshon demarcated as one As problems mounted and ranchers became
intensity cropping on smaller holdings. The parcel
group ranch while others preferred each subsection increasingly unhappy, the idea of subdividing sizes are typically too small to be ecologically
to be a group ranch. The Maasai in better-watered, group ranches began to gain wide acceptance. and economically viable for traditional livestock
fertile or high-potential areas, such as in the Some pastoralists transformed their ranches from
production. For most households, the parcels
northernmost part of Kaputiei near Nairobi, resolved private group tenure to private individual tenure. are also too small to provide adequate family
to avoid group ranches and wanted only individual Many people wanted their own land because: subsistence. Some individual holdings have been
ranches to be demarcated. 1) they wanted to use their titles as collateral for
further subdivided into even smaller parcels.
loans, which they could not do with a collective
Many group ranches were not ecologically viable title; 2) they were frustrated with the inefficiency of A number of individual landholders have sold their
units. Producers often moved out of their group managing ranches by committees; 3) an increasing parcels. The original Poka Group Ranch no longer
ranches in search of pastures and water, especially number of young men wanted their own land, exists; much of the land was sold to non-Maasai.
during the dry season and in times of stress, such rather than a share of their father’s land; 4) some Subdivision has hindered animal movement
as the drought of 1973-76. In dry areas, particularly feared further land alienation or felt frustrated by the and any hope of future land reconsolidation.
in the southern and western parts of Kajiado, the inability to control squatting on group ranches; and Overgrazing has been exacerbated, further
Maasai established large group ranches, the borders 5) they preferred individual production over group contributing to soil erosion and land degradation.
of which essentially coincided with the original production. These changes have fractured pastoral society and
areas assigned for group ranching (e.g., Lodokilani, induced insecurity, poverty and landlessness.
Matapato and Kisongo sections). However, there A number of Maasai, however, opposed subdivision.
was a disregard for boundaries which led to Many believed that non-Maasai land buyers would Much has been learned in Kenya from its
environmental degradation, competition and find it easy to acquire individual holdings, and that experience in altering community-based land
increased conflict over scarce pasture. the influx of outsiders would dilute and undermine tenure systems in pastoral areas—first as group
Maasai culture. Subdivision into smaller land units ranches, then as individual parcels. A chief lesson is
Historically, traditional Maasai institutions effectively would encourage agricultural cropping and crop that traditional tenure systems often have evolved
managed communally-held pastures while allowing protection mechanisms (e.g., fences and trenches), in response to livelihood and environmental
individually-owned livestock. The group ranch thereby restricting livestock movement and sustainability needs. Attempts to “fix” these systems
committees, however, had difficulties acting as negatively affecting livestock production. Increased in the interest of making them more productive
collective bodies; they tended not to meet, rarely cultivation would also result in soil erosion, land can produce unintended consequences.
reached important decisions, and then failed to degradation and the loss of grazing resources. Government interventions and donor investments
implement their decisions. As a result, dips, water must recognize the often complex relations
pumps and engines were not properly managed Though the government was initially opposed to
between traditional livelihoods and customary
and maintained, livestock quotas were not enforced, subdivision, the 1968 Land (Group Representatives) tenure arrangements.
and revenue was not collected for repayments of Act provided for subdivision of group ranches. With
outstanding loans. The representatives of many the approval and help of government, many group In 2010, Kenyans approved a new Constitution with
ranches were young people which exacerbated ranches were subdivided into equal shares of land a number of provisions on group ranches and other
social conflicts in societies where authority is vested for all registered members and each registered communal land. Perhaps the most important is
in elders. Older, more conservative and wealthy member was issued his own title. Following Article 63(4) which specifies that "Community land
Maasai were often opposed to group ranches and approval to subdivide the prototype Poka Group shall not be disposed of or otherwise used except
boycotted meetings. Ranch in 1981 and the Kipeto-Kisanju Group Ranch in terms of legislation specifying the nature and
in 1982, the government formed a committee to extent of the rights of members of each community
There was also conflict among ranch members examine the socioeconomic problems associated individually and collectively.” Article 63(5) requires
regarding stock quotas. Quotas were to be allocated with group ranches. Parliament to pass legislation to implement the
to each household in proportion to the number of above provisions. Advocates are optimistic that this
animals owned at the time of incorporation, but rich Implementation of the group ranch subdivision new law will provide communities which hold and
participants wanted larger stock quotas while the process proved to be slow and most groups failed manage common property the security they need
poor members felt that such quotas would inhibit to meet government-imposed stipulations for to sustain livelihoods, protect their resource base,
their chances of increasing their wealth. In many subdivision, which included paying up all monies
and promote local development.
ranches, a compromise was reached: members were owed to the Agricultural Finance Corporation. The
allocated a minimum quota that was sufficient for group ranches that first implemented subdivision
viability and rich members were given any extra were close to urban centers and had areas of arable
allocations. In many cases, however, the members and irrigable land. In contrast, most ranches that
were not subdivided had no arable land and were
SOURCES
Grandin, Barbara E. 1991. “The Maasai: Socio-Historical Context and Group Ranches.” In Maasai Herding: An Analysis of the Livestock Production System of Maasai Pastoralists in Eastern Kajiado District,
Kenya, edited by Solomon Bekure, Peter N. de Leeuw, Barbara E. Grandin and Paul J. H. Neate, pp. 21–39. ILCA Systems. Available online at: HYPERLINK “http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ILRI/x5552E/
x5552e05.htm”http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ILRI/x5552E/x5552e05.htm, accessed on 15 December 2010.
Kibugi, Robert M. 2009. A Failed Land Use Legal and Policy Framework for the African Commons?: Reviewing Rangeland Governance in Kenya. Journal of Land Use 24(2): 309-336. Available online at:
HYPERLINK “http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol24_2/kibugi.pdf” http://www.law.fsu.edu/journals/landuse/vol24_2/kibugi.pdf, accessed on 15 December 2010.
Lesorogol, C. 2008. Contesting the Commons: Privatizing Pastoral Lands in Kenya, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Lesorogol, C. 2008. Land Privatization and Pastoralist Well-being in Kenya. Development and Change 39(2): 309-31.
Ngethe, J. C. 1993. “Group Ranch Concept and Practice in Kenya with Special Emphasis on Kajiado District.” In: Future of Livestock Industries in East and Southern Africa: Proceedings of the Workshop
Held at Kadoma Ranch Hotel, July, 20–23, 1992, Zimbabwe, edited by J. A. Kategile and S. Mubi, pp. 187-200. Available online at: HYPERLINK “http://www.fao.org/Wairdocs/ILRI/x5485E/x5485e0t.
htm” http://www.fao.org/Wairdocs/ILRI/x5485E/x5485e0t.htm, accessed on 15 December 2010.